rendered in an given month. As of June 9, 1932 telegraph duties were added to the position.

The Carrier deducted an amount equal to the two days pro rata of the stated monthly compensation in each of the ten months July 1932 to April 1933, inclusive, and as of May 1st, 1933 established basic monthly rate of $230.00 for the position, less 10 per cent or $207.00 net.

It is shown that Agent Reiss actually worked on the two days in which said payroll deductions were made in each month, and received $207.75 net for his services in each of the months of June 1932 to March 1933, inclusive, and $190.52 in April 1933; and that he has actually been compensated for each month's service $207.00 net from and after May 1, 1933. There is no dispute with respect to the adequacy of monthly compensation from May 1, 1933, forward.

As of the date that telegraph duties were added (June 9, 1932) the position in question was thereby brought within the scope of agreement between the parties and subject to the terms thereof."

In conclusion the attention of the Board is directed to Mediation Agreement Case A-2070, negotiated at Chicago, Illinois, as of July 13, 1945 by the participating Carriers, of which this Carrier was one, and The Order of Railroad Telegraphers pertaining to a rest day rule. Copy of this agreement minus Appendicies (A) and (B), is submitted and marked Carrier's Exhibit ":A". Particular attention of the Board is directed to Article 2 of that Agreement, which reads as follows:

"Article 2. Nothing in this agreement shall apply to positions paid on a monthly basis unless otherwise agreed between the management and the committee on the individual carrier."

The above furnishes further conclusive evidence that positions paid on a monthly basis are recognized by the parties as being in an entirely different category from other positions covered by the Telegraphers' Agreement, and supports the statements of the Carrier that positions of agent at star (*) stations compensated on a monthly basis are not entitled to overtime, that the monthly rate paid covers all services rendered, and that this has been the mutual understanding of the parties through the years.

It is clearly evident from the foregoing that the contention and claim of the Employes that the position of supervisory agent at Bryan, which station is a star (*) agency compensated on a monthly basis to cover all service rendered, is entitled to overtime for service performed in excess of eight hours, is without basis; that the record definitely and conclusively shows that it has been mutually recognized and understood by the parties that the occupants of such positions are not entitled to overtime, and that it has not been the practice for the Employes to claim nor for the Carrier to allow overtime on such positions, in view of which this claim should be denied.

The submission of this case to the Adjustment Board is without question an attempt on the part of the Employes to obtain a new rule providing that monthly rated positions of agent at star (*) agencies will receive overtime contrary to the mutual understanding of the parties over the years as evidenced by the information contained in the "Position of Carrier". As the granting of new rules is a function not coming within the province of the Adjustment Board, the contention and accompanying claim of the Employes should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

OPINION OF BOARD: The issues in this claim are identical with those in Docket Number TE-3196, Award Number 3405, and for the reasons stated in that award the claim is denied.

That there is no violation of the Agreement.

AWARD